Bri writes:
>>Maybe so...but that happened because the WCHA teams did not perform well
>>enough during the reg season to get those byes.  He has no right to
>>complain, IMO.  It was not unfair at all.  Sounds to me like he is looking
>>for an excuse.
>
>Perhaps, I might buy that (pun unintended) in another year. But,
>the fact that two of the games were really close (Mich-Wisc went
>to overtime and LSSU-UMD was one goal, I think) reinforces his (my)
>argument.
 
If you are looking to reinforce your argument, I'd think that using the
results of the other two games would be better - those teams that lost
(NMU/Minn) could just as easily claim that they'd have had a better
chance to win had they not been forced to play back to back.  Especially
NMU.  But you're putting the cart before the horse.  Wisconsin and UMD
had to play on only a day's rest vs Michigan and LSSU because they were
deemed to have not done well enough to earn the rest.  The outcome of the
games only proves that some teams without the byes were able to play well
with less time off.  That doesn't mean they deserved an extra day between
games - they were the lower seeds, after all.  I'm not sure what you are
suggesting, but why give more of an advantage to the teams seeded lower?
 
>Perhaps they could strike a compromise like have one day in between
>the first and second round, as someone suggested. That seems fair.
 
This was what was done last year...it was blamed for poor attendance at
both regionals, losses by higher seeds, and everything else except the
extinction of the dodo bird.  After witnessing what happened last year
and this year, I am happier with the 1993 way of doing things.  The
underdogs still have a chance to win, and there is more of a balance
between the team that has more rest and the team that is sharper because
they've played more recently.
 
>Well, I disagree. I think they do want parity. I don't think they want
>everyone going into a series knowing that someone is going to win.
 
Don't confuse parity with having the games be a tossup...if parity was
REALLY the goal, Maine and BU would have been sent out West so as to
improve the chances that they'd get beaten.  In addition, if we really
knew who was going to win every series beforehand, they would have never
been played, and BU wouldn't have upset #1 MSU in 1990 in a best of 3,
nor would UAA have upset BC in 1991.
 
>I refer you to a letter sent to me
>from Phil Buttafuoco (Joe's cousin? :)  in which he stated that the
>reason the best of 3, on campus format was dropped was because, "the
>coaches felt that there was a tremendous disadvantage" for teams
>without home ice. He referred to the fact that 14 of the last 16 teams
>with first round byes (at the time it was written) advanced to
>the final four. If they didn't want more parity, then why change it?
 
Hmm, maybe we have different definitions of parity...to me, it is that
both teams have an equal chance to win, meaning you stack the deck on
the weaker team's side if necessary)...I still believe the goal was to
decrease the length of the tourney, from things I'd heard, and perhaps
then when deciding how to re-format the tourney, the issue about road
teams having a disadvantage came up.  Or maybe they were indeed given
equal consideration...but I don't think that giving the road teams a
better chance to win is equivalent to making each matchup a tossup.  There
will be upsets in every format.
 
Finally, I think Phil might have made a better use of statistics to prove
his point...the fact that 14 of 16 teams with byes made the final four
from 88-91 does not indicate that road teams are at a "tremendous
disadvantage" any more than the fact that Merrimack, BC and PC all failed
to make the HE final four means that HE Catholic schools are at a
disadvantage.  The road teams were on the road because they were not good
enough to earn the right to be at home; thus, as underdogs, we'd expect
they would not win many more series than they did.  On top of that, we
have the fact that this year all four teams with byes made it to Milwaukee.
If the goal is to keep trying to stack the tourney against the teams who
earned higher seeds, then why not just seed the teams 1-16, kick the top
4 out and let 5-16 play?
 
 
- mike (finally got a post through from here)